Saint Olave's Law Society Journal ; Issue 01 (Autumn 2013) | Page 22

Saint
 Olave’s
 Law
 Society
 Journal

MEDICAL
 NEGLIGENCE

AHMAD
 YASIN

An
  action
  for
  negligence
  against
  a
  doctor
  is
 for
 him
 unto
 a
 dagger.
 His
 professional
  reputation
  is
  as
  dear
  to
  him
  as
  his
  body,
  perhaps
  more
  so,
  and
  an
  action
  for
  negligence
  can
  wound
  his
  reputation
  as
  severely
 as
 a
 dagger
 can
 his
 body
 [1]
  The
  cost
  of
  medical
  litigation
  for
  the
  NHS
 is
 estimated
 to
 be
 over
 200
 million
  pounds
 per
 year.
 However,
 what
 is
 more
  alarming
 is
 the
 fact
 that
 a
 study
 carried
  out
  by
  National
  Audit
  Office
  estimates
  this
  figure
  to
  be
  £2.8bil
  (provided
  all
  victims
  of
  clinical
  negligence
  actually
  took
  action.)
  So,
  do
  you
  trust
  your
  doctor?
 [2]
  Medical
  negligence,
  in
  simple
  terms,
  refers
  to
  when
  a
  medical
  professional
  fails
  to
  carry
  out
  his
  or
  her
  duty
  correctly.
  Under
  the
  tort
  of
  negligence,
  a
  claimant
  is
  entitled
  to
  sue
  if
  the
  following
 three
 criteria
 are
 proved:
  • The
  professional
  being
  sued
  owed
 the
 claimant
 a
 duty
 of
 care
  • The
  professional
  breached
  the
  duty
 of
 care
  • The
 breach
 of
 duty
 of
 care
 caused
  the
 claimant
 loss

 The
  law
  of
  Tort
  states
  that
  you
  owe
  a
  duty
  of
  care
  to
  anyone
  you
  may
  reasonably,
  imaginably
  injure.
  To
  put
  this
  into
  perspective,
  all
  staff
  in
  a
  hospital
 owe
 a
 duty
 of
 care
 to
 patients
 in
  the
 hospital.
 This
 seems
 simple
 enough.
  However,
  this
  gets
  more
  complicated
  when
  you
  try
  to
  determine
  whether
  a
  medical
 professional
 owes
 a
 duty
 of
 care
  to
  a
  person
  who
  falls
  ill
  in
  a
  public
  place
  in
  a
  presence
  of
  a
  doctor;
  or
  whether
  a
  duty
  of
  care
  is
  owed
  by
  a
  medical
  professional
 to
 the
 relatives
 of
 a
 patient.
  In
 such
 a
 case,
 the
 following
 question
 is
  asked;
  was
  it
  reasonably
  foreseeable
  that
 the
 defendant’s
 actions
 would
 cause
  the
  victim
  harm
  -­?
  the
  defendant
  here

being
  the
  medical
  professional
  –
  and
  if
  it’s
 reasonable
 to
 think
 that
 the
 doctor’s
  actions
  could
  have
  caused
  the
  victim
  harm?
  In
 a
 hypothetical
 situation,
 a
 doctor
 who
  prescribes
  medicine
  to
  a
  patient
  would
  not
 be
 found
 to
 owe
 a
 duty
 of
 care
 to,
 for
  example,
  the
  patient’s
  daughter
  who
  happens
 to
 find
 the
 medicine
 bottle
 and
  eat
  the
  tablets.
  The
  doctor
  doesn’t
  have
  a
  duty
  of
  care
  here
  because
  the
  actions
  of
  the
  daughter
  aren’t
  reasonably
  foreseeable.
  Likewise,
  if
  a
  medical
  professional
  walks
  past
  a
  road
  traffic
  accident
  and
  fails
  to
  offer
  assistance,
  this
 will
 not
 amount
 to
 breach
 of
 duty
 of
  care.
  Simply
  proving
  that
  a
  health
  professional
 has
 been
 negligent
 does
 not
  mean
  that
  the
  claimant
  has
  automatically
  won
  his
  or
  her
  case.
  So
  fulfilling
 these
 criteria
 doesn’t
 mean
 you
  can
 sue,
 as
 you
 will
 also
 has
 to
 be
 prove
  that
  the
  negligence
  caused
  the
  victim’s
  injuries.

  This
  basic
  test
  for
  causation
  is
  known
  as
  the
  “but
  for”
  test.
  This
  simply
  asks
  the
  questions;
  whether
  “but
  for”
  the
  defendant’s
  negligence
  the
  patient
  would
 have
 suffered
 an
 injury.
  In
  a
  different
  scenario,
  a
  doctor
  refuses
  to
  see
  a
  man
  who
  turns
  up
  at
  casualty
  complaining
  of
  stomach
  pains,
  and
  shortly
  dies
  afterwards.
  It
  is
  clear
  that
  the
  doctor
  was
  negligent
  in
  refusing
  to
  see
  the
  patient.
  However,
  if
  there
  was
  evidence
  to
  suggest
  that
  the
  doctor
  could
 have
 done
 nothing
 to
 save
 his
 life
  if
  they
  hadn’t
  refused
  to
  see
  the
  man;
  then
 -­?
 although
 the
 doctor
 was
 negligent
  -­?
 it
 cannot
 be
 accurately
 concluded
 that
  this
  negligence
  caused
  the
  injury,
  or
  –
  in
  this
 case
 –
 death.
  • A
  doctor
  can
  also
  be
  negligent
  if
  he
 or
 she
 fails
 to
 fully
 obtain
 the
  consent
  from
  his
  or
  her
  patient.
  Gone
  are
  the
  days
  when
  a
  “trust
  me,
  I’m
  a
  doctor”
  approach

  Issue
 01

 Autumn
 2013

 22